Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 312 F.3d 1368 - Liesegang v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs

Liesegang v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs’s Empirical Analysis

312 F.3d 1368 · 2002

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
November 2023
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably Disabled American Veterans v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs (2003), Natural Resources Defense Council v. Abraham (2004)

13 federal appellate · 1 district ·

130200220102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 38 U.S.C. § 1116 · 38 U.S.C. § 116 · 38 U.S.C. § 502 · 38 U.S.C. § 5110 · 5 U.S.C. § 706 · 5 U.S.C. § 801 (Truth in Regulating Act of 2000)

Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr · Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital · Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill · Morton v. Mancari

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; [or] (D) without observance of procedure required by law...,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “notwithstanding any other provision of law”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “veterans with pending or finally adjudicated claims under the diabetes regulation be notified in writing, in clear and unambiguous terms, that the true effective date of the regulation is May 8, 2001. In addition, each such veteran must be further informed of the consequences to him or her, in terms of the effect on his or her claim for compensation, of the correct effective date. If such information is not conveyed in writing to each such veteran, there can be no assurance that veterans will be able to enjoy their entitlement to the correct effective date.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.